It is the nature of science to constantly question itself. But this doesn't mean that new answers, just because they are new, are always right.

Good new answers are peer reviewed and only then do they become mainstream. None of the claims made by Mohammad Shafiq have successfully passed this test. Mixing science with atheism is nonsense. Atheism is the nonbelief in God. Science is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. The predictions of Einstein and all the other great sciences are still excellent. Relativity, for example, plays a key role in a multi-billion dollar growth industry centered around the Global Positioning System (GPS).

A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt

Just to add note to show the nonsence postulated by Shafiq I post a review probably the greatest Muslim scientist of the 20th century. The only trouble as you will see in the eyes of the narrow minded is that he was an Ahmadi

Book information Cosmic Anger: The first Muslim Nobel scientist by Gordon Fraser, Oxford University Press. ISBN: 9780199208463. Review by Professor Jim al-Khalili, a theoretical physicist at the University of Surrey, UK. His review was published in New Scientist, issue 2663 page 49.

UNTIL I read Gordon Fraser's excellent Cosmic Anger I knew just two things about the Pakistani physicist Abdus Salam: he won the Nobel prize for physics in 1979 for his part in developing the electroweak theory which unifies two of the four forces of nature, and he founded the International Centre for Theoretical Physics in Trieste, Italy, to support researchers from developing countries.

Actually, let me add a third fact that I was vaguely aware of but which crystallised after reading this biography: Salam stands as the greatest physicist of the Islamic world for 1,000 years. Not since the 11th-century polymath Ibn al-Haytham has there been a more influential figure in the field.

Born in the Punjab in 1926, Abdus Salam - a western corruption of a single first name - showed early signs of talent. At school he quickly solved a problem posed by the Indian maths genius Srinivasa Ramanujan, using an approach far more elegant than that of the great man himself.

Salam was a devout Muslim, but his life was hampered by his adherence to a controversial and relatively obscure sect called the Ahmadis, so much so that his religious convictions led him to be excommunicated from Pakistan in the 1970s. Despite this, he remained loyal to his country and worked tirelessly to promote science in the Islamic world. He also spent much of his life lobbying world leaders and the United Nations for funding to help science in developing countries. Not since Einstein has any one scientist been so influential on the world stage.

But without the support of his own country, Salam's dream of a scientific renaissance in the Islamic world was doomed to failure. It is to Pakistan's eternal shame that its greatest scientist was not acknowledged because of a narrow-minded intolerance towards his brand of religion. I believe that until Salam is given the respect he deserves there can be no true Islamic renaissance in science.

The early "Golden Age" of Islam, from the 8th to the 11th century, was notable not only for the many great scientific advances that were made, but for its acceptance of scholars from all races and religions. The reasons for the subsequent slow decline of science in the Islamic world between the 11th and 15th centuries are complex and varied, but the fact remains that Islamic countries today have a lot of catching up to do.

Salam's main devotion in life, however, was not to religion but to physics. His genius left its mark wherever he went: Cambridge, Princeton, Imperial College London and finally Trieste. The post-war decades saw tremendous advances in our understanding of the subatomic world. Together with Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, Salam created a theory that brought together the electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces, one of the most beautiful and powerful ideas in physics.

More than a biography of a great scientist, this book provides a wider political and historical commentary. And while some of the details of Salam's physics may be incomprehensible to those without a background in the subject, the politics of the Indian subcontinent, and the status of science in Islam, both past and present, make this an important and enlightening read.

A very brief synopsis would clarify my work to all members & justify the relevance of my work to philosophy & theology. Aristotle considered space as finite & absolute, time as absolute and matter as absolute accordingly thereby God had no power on space, time & matter but he defined God with the power as Prime Mover of everything (matter) & an uncaused cause. Newton through his laws held that matter moves in nature not because of God but because of inherent nature of matter by which matter attracts other matter.Coming to how Newton's Laws are wrong? From the time of Aristotle space was considered as finite & absolute till 1905. Thus at the time Newton also same perspective of space was held. Now finite space means the universe has boundaries and according to Law of Gravitation the stars/galaxies on the periphery of the universe will be attracted towards the central universe and according to 2nd Law of Motion these peripheral stars/galaxies will accelerate towards the centre of the universe finally to collapse there. Thus finite space (the nature of space known at the time of Newton) and Law of Gravitation are contradictory. Newton assumed sun at rest but under Newton's Laws the rest condition of any celestrial object is just not possible. Having rejected the Descartes's aether and assumed the space as vacuum; in the 1st Law of Motion he states that objects with uniform (linear) motion faces absolutely no resistance but under second Law of Motion Newton states that objects pose resistance to the change in motion which he represented by inertia or mass. He assigns no physical reason to this resistance to the change in motion and it is here the philosophy/rationality was sacrificed on mathematics. Now even today physicists do not know what is mass & where it is in the particles. Representation of planetary motion of solar system by Newton Laws mathematically was the only criteria for adopting the Newton's Laws; though his Laws were irrational, incorrect & untenable; was the greatest scientific error in the history of science. This Newton did to reject the existence of aether which was scientifically introduced by Descartes. Newton by introducing irrational & incorrect laws closed the doors of investigation into the existence of God especially by rejecting the existence of aether which together with nature of light contained the secrets of reality. Later this was very well known that Newton laws cannot be correct as explained by Mach & others; whatever corrections were required those corrections Einstein introduced with the help very confusing fallacie (described in detail in my articles). Now a paradigm of physics was defined by Einstein under which God just cannot exist. Four constituents of the universe were reduced to two by Einstein namely space-time concept and matter & energy transmutability where space is emergent, matter is emergent and time is interconnected with space. Philosophically for any existence including God there are two basic requirements namely space & substance. Without discussing the substance; by the emergent space is meant that space came into existence at a point in time as such there is no possiblity that eternal God could have existed before the space came into existence i.e. 13.7 billion years ago or thereafter. Both of them; Newton & Einstein; had rejected aether before introducing their laws & theories. Whereas aether has been shown to be existing and containing the secrets of light & time. Once aether is accepted space is again finite & absolute, time is relative depending upon motion of the observer, and as humans perceive it, time is emergent and matter is not absolute but emergent. Now for emergence of matter & time the existence of God is a pre-condition and once we investigate the matter, aether & forces in nature there have to be substances which do not have electromagnetic properties & cannot be seen. Soul & God are substances without any electromagnetic properties so these substances cannot interact with light/radiation which are electromagnetic waves and as such we cannot physically see soul or God.

The humanity was deceived by denying the existence of ether in the space which is visible to even a layman. If during the night anybody stands near an electric lamp with the filament and stresses the muscles of the eye; he would see the shining ether around the lamp.

I have shown mathematically, theoretically & experimentally what I have stated in the published scientific research article 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' (www.indjst.org; March2012) which is also available on www.gsjournal.net, www.wrldsci.org, viXra, Intellectual Archives & Researchgate in my profile. You could see it on http://www.indjst.org/archive/mar-2012/1-mar%20khan.html

Einstein is proved fundamentally incorrect mathematically, theoretically & experimentally in the following scientific research article published in peer-reviewed journal 'Experimental & Theoretical Evidences of Fallacy of Space-time Concept and Actual State of Existence of the Physical Universe' (www.indjst.org; March2012) available on the linkhttp://www.indjst.org/archive/mar-2012/1-mar%20khan.html. There may be some on this thread who think that findings in published scientific articles could be questioned on discussion forums like this but there is a very well known & established scientific proceadure of questioning the findings in such articles and that is publication of the rebuttal articles in peer-reviewed journals.

Mohammad Shafiq, I would suggest that for you to push your "theories" on a debate forum and not expect to be debated is both naive and arrogant. It also indicates to me that perhaps settling for a career in social forestry (whatever that is) was a wise choice.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot create polls in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forum

Disclaimer:
The opinions expressed herein contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. This forum is offered to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization.
If there is any issue with any of the postings please email to icforum at islamicity.com or if you are a forum's member you can use the report button.